Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cafeteria Christianity

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) KTC (talk) 01:29, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cafeteria Christianity (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The existence of this page violates wp:neologism, wp:notability and wp:npov Niado (talk) 14:43, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 15:17, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete As per above + ?violation of "WP is not a dictionary"? Jpacobb (talk) 17:01, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, 20 years' usage is not a neologism, and Google books has just over 200 results for the phrase. I have trimmed some more WP:OR and will add/improve citations. – Fayenatic London 17:58, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • On closer inspection, some of those books are based on Wikipedia, but there seem to be about 150 that are not. – Fayenatic London 18:34, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I applaud your quick work!. You have drastically improved the article. I still have concerns regarding wp:not a dictionary as the article is still little more than a definition. Niado (talk) 19:17, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks! I've since added further material with citations from reasonably weighty sources, which I think justify keeping the page. I hope somebody will find time to look at the external links & incorporate material from them if appropriate. – Fayenatic London 20:03, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Fayenatic; not just a dictionary listing, notable subject, needs work not deletion.--Arxiloxos (talk) 18:30, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. It is WP:OR and it is WP:SOAPBOX. It can never be rewritten to conform to WP:NPOV.Qworty (talk) 23:14, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Everything is a neologism if you go far enough back. This one has fairly broad currency and is well recorded. Although we're not there yet, a discussion of its history could be encyclopedic and is expandable to more than a dicdef.Andy Dingley (talk) 00:42, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with Cafeteria Catholicism. I had heard of this, but by and large is a dictionary term, free of any theological connotation. Should be in Wiktionary, but really what is there to say here? It just means that people selectively follow the teachings that suit them. That is just a definition. But if some people are hot on keeping it, there is no point in two articles dealing with the same simple idea. There is no depth here. History2007 (talk) 03:12, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If we were to merge, it should be reverse merge as the term would appear to apply to more than just one denomination. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:35, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Used often enough to need an explanation. Related to Cafeteria Catholicism certainly, but that has a precise context where the Church prescribes a set of doctrines which members are expected to adhere to. In Christianity as a whole the matter is much less clear cut, and as used in the Church of England for example, it can be used to describe the practice of picking a church within the denomination where the style of worship and preaching on aspects of doctrine best suit the individual rather than merely attending the nearest or parish church. Certainly used wholly perjoratively in some circles as a quick search on cafeteria (style) Christianity demonstrates, but it can be and is used in a more neutral way as describing the way in which many Christians find their own accommodation to the multiplicity of interpretations of the fundamentals of Christian belief and styles of worship, and approvingly as an encouragement to individual churches and congregations to adopt a distinctive style. More than a dicdef is required. --AJHingston (talk) 09:54, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and I will pick-and-choose which policies I think should be applied here ! AutomaticStrikeout 20:49, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Fayenatic London. Cafeteria Christianity is not just a word (for a dictionary), it is a concept (for an encyclopedia). Trying to think of a more generic word or phrase for the same concept is rather difficult. And this is the term people use. The concept is that one can embrace or reject orthodox teachings at will, with no real negative consequences. It implies the cafeteria Christian does not really believe that God will punish evil, or that grace given by God is cheap, or that God doesn't exist (all of which are against orthodox Christian beliefs). Guðsþegn (talk) 02:20, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep -- I had not come across the term, but it seems a harmless article. It is more than just a definition. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:34, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Assuming the namin is correct, then the topic is notable. — ΛΧΣ21™ 23:50, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.